“The United States will NOT accept this global green new tax on shipping and will not comply in any way.” – U.S. President Donald Trump
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is working on a global mechanism for carbon pricing in the shipping sector. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping and achieve climate goals.
Policy framework
The proposal includes a binding emissions tax for ships operating above a certain carbon footprint. Revenues from this levy would be used for:
Investment in clean technologies and alternative fuels;
Supporting developing countries in their energy transition;
Encourage innovation within the maritime sector.
Impact on the industry
The introduction of a global carbon tax is expected to:
Higher transportation costs, with possible price increases for goods worldwide;
Accelerated investment in sustainable shipping technologies;
Regulatory complexity, especially for shipping companies operating in both global and regional markets (such as the EU ETS);
Economic impact on developing countries, although the policy also provides financial support for them.
Position of America
America has spoken out against the IMO proposal. The US government states that:
The measure amounts to a global carbon tax that could have negative economic impacts on American consumers and businesses;
The proposal is a form of international interference in national economic policy;
Countermeasures such as trade restrictions and sanctions against countries or institutions that support the proposal will be considered.
America will vote against a global carbon tax proposed by the IMO. In addition, the country has successfully pushed for a delay in decision-making, delaying the introduction of the policy for now.
“We will not tolerate price hikes for American consumers or the creation of a Green New Scam bureaucracy that spends your money on their green dreams.” – Trump on Truth Social.
If the framework is approved in 2026, the global emissions tax is expected to take effect in 2027, with the actual start of levies from 2028. This would make it the first global mechanism to impose both a price on greenhouse gas emissions and binding emission limits on an entire industrial sector.
Crude oil
WTI oil price close to 5-month lows
“Inventory build-up has now exceeded the 2024 pace by +220 (million barrels), increasing pressure on the shipping market. Almost all regions appear to be under selling pressure.” – Brian Leisen, global oil strategist RBC Capital Markets
The crude oil price of West Texas Intermediate and Brent are still under pressure. An unexpectedly large inventory build in America, the third week in a row, and uncertainty over India’s decision regarding crude oil imports from Russia are playing a role.
Trump would like to see India stop buying Russian oil. Indian refiners say they expect to reduce, but not stop, their purchases of Russian crude. Managing Director Mundkur Shyamprasad Kamath of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd told Bloomberg that he was “sure” his company would continue to buy Russian oil.
India flip flops between resisting America or reducing its purchases of Russian oil in response to American pressure to phase them out. The decision that India eventually makes is important to Russia, which needs petrodollars to finance the fight in Ukraine.
The market is still waiting for clarity on the situation. The Indian government has so far made no official response to former President Trump’s statements – neither an affirmation nor a denial. Trump has not presented a timeline for winding down India’s purchases of Russian oil, nor indicated how Washington would seek to force such a change in direction. He did, however, indicate that an immediate termination of these purchases is out of the question.
Below is the monthly chart for the December 2025 contract. The hefty red candle for October indicates downward pressure, with a possible test of the level around $50 per barrel in the coming months.
Musk’s data center Power Math could double U.S. energy output
“Batteries. The US power grid has a capacity of 1 TW at steady state, but average consumption is about 0.5 TW. Run power plants at night to charge batteries and let them discharge during the day to power AI.” – Elon Musk
Analysis by Goldman Sachs, UBS, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and others shows that the rapidly increasing electricity demand of AI chips in data centers makes traditional air cooling inadequate, so liquid cooling is now seen as the preferred solution.
A broader concern, however, is that increasing electricity demand from data centers is straining already fragile grids, cramping supply, driving electricity prices higher and increasing the risk of blackouts. Nuclear restart and new construction will take years. Each 1 GW of AI computing capacity costs $50 billion at current prices, according to OpenAI. By 2028, Morgan Stanley predicts at least 65 GW of new data center demand.
ZeroHedge reported that the current U.S. power grid may not have sufficient capacity to handle the increasing demand from AI applications. Elon Musk responded by suggesting that large-scale industrial battery systems, such as Tesla’s, could provide an effective solution to stabilize the grid. According to Musk, this could double the annual electricity supply in the US.
In June 2024, Adam Jonas of business bank Morgan Stanley suggested that Tesla would take a strategic position in the next AI-related market move. Meanwhile, it appears that the company’s battery technology in particular plays a key role in this.
Nuclear power is not expected to be available as a large-scale solution for several years. Goldman Sachs warns of potential price spikes and power outages in the interim. To avoid this, it is important that both the federal government and grid operators invest in cost-effective and scalable energy solutions. These should not only keep electricity prices manageable, but also ensure a stable power grid in the face of increasing competition in artificial intelligence, especially from China. In this regard, Goldman points to the power grid as the vulnerable link within broader energy security.
Concerns over Europe’s below-average natural gas supply levels
“The level of natural gas storage in the EU is 83% and is significantly lower than last year (95%) and below the multi-year average (89.4%).” – Tomasz WÅ‚odek, NatGas researcher
Although the EU is well prepared for the 2025-26 winter, a report by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) shows natural gas inventory levels in the bloc are still significantly lower than this time last year. And well below the 10-year average. Europe relies heavily on stored natural gas to meet winter heating demand. Starting the cold season with lower reserves could drive prices higher as consumption gradually increases with colder weather ahead.
The EU gas system reached a storage level of 83% on Oct. 1. It shows resilience in case of further gas supply disruptions from Russia or limited LNG supplies. This level falls within the range observed in the years before the energy crisis.
Even without Russian pipeline gas imports, the winter could end with EU storage 35% filled. That would provide a good basis for replenishing gas supply facilities the following summer.
In scenarios with further, large supply disruptions, the EU gas system is resilient enough to increase LNG imports to compensate for the supply loss. This resilience also lowers the need to reduce gas demand in case of extreme weather events.
However, not everyone is as confident as ENTSOG. Natural gas researcher Tomasz WÅ‚odek wrote on X that the fill rate is currently only 83% compared to 95% last year. He stated that the maximum storage level is unlikely to exceed 85%, given the preliminary weather forecasts.
Europe relies heavily on stored natural gas to meet winter heating and electricity demand when consumption peaks. Storage acts as a buffer when it is full. When supplies are low, it can cause panic buying. Especially after the Ukraine-Russia war, the European natural gas system is now much more dependent for converting LNG into natural gas (“regasification”) at terminals in Spain, France and the Netherlands.
Analysts and traders closely monitor weekly stock reports. Current and expected storage levels have a strong influence on Dutch TTF natural gas prices. It is the benchmark for European gas trading, electricity prices and carbon contracts.
The price of the front-month TTF forward contract currently moves around €32 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Since the summer, the price has been in a relatively narrow range between €30 and €35 per MWh. With this, Europe is eagerly awaiting a mild winter, hoping for stable energy prices.
The technical analysis of the accompanying chart indicates a so-called bearish wedge pattern, which may indicate downward price pressure. Meanwhile, the price of the 2026 TTF annual contract continues to lose risk premium, despite the still-present possibility of a cold winter. As with the oil price, there is the possibility of new lows below the February 2024 level.
Price TTF gas supply year 2026 (eur/MWh) – month cloud candle, log scale
Coal
New nuclear energy era thanks to private investment
“All unsolvable problems suddenly become solvable, which is very exciting for the nuclear sector.” – Arfa Karani, investor
Several governments are focusing on fighting climate change by shifting away from fossil fuels and pursuing a green transition. Much is being made of a long-neglected energy source: nuclear electricity. Nuclear electricity was at the top of many countries’ energy agenda for several decades before a series of notable nuclear disasters shifted public perception of the clean energy source. Several governments stopped development for years.
Studies show that nuclear electricity is one of the safest forms of energy, as long as strict control mechanisms are observed. We are therefore seeing a resurgence of this clean energy source. One of the major constraints to development is the high cost of such projects.
Running nuclear power plants is relatively inexpensive, but the development costs of a new plant and reactor are extremely high. It costs several billion dollars to set up. Many governments finance the development of nuclear energy facilities through public-private partnerships. Private investors are often more willing to finance nuclear projects that have the political and financial backing of the government as a guarantee.
In the past year, several tech companies have agreements signed with nuclear companies to access large volumes of nuclear electricity as they come online. Nuclear is a cleaner way to power advanced technologies such as data centers and artificial intelligence (AI). The widespread rollout of these technologies is expected to drive up global energy demand in the coming decades. Governments are increasingly shifting the burden to tech companies for finding clean energy sources to run their operations instead of depending on the existing grid.
Last September, representatives from some of the world’s largest uranium and nuclear energy companies, as well as nuclear experts and investors, gathered at the World Nuclear Association’s (WNA) annual symposium. Discussed was the potential for nuclear investment, with investment in the nuclear value chain set to increase from $1.5 trillion in 2024 to $2.2 trillion in 2050, Morgan Stanley said.
Many investors are reluctant to invest in nuclear power because of the uncertainties associated with project development. The construction of new nuclear plants and reactors is extremely complex. Projects often exceed their budgets and take years longer to develop than expected beforehand, as with EDF’s Sizewell C in Britain. The cost to develop Sizewell C has nearly doubled to $1.9 billion since the project was first proposed. That will ultimately affect consumers’ electricity bills. It is largely due to the lack of nuclear power plant construction in recent decades that has driven up the cost of new project development relative to countries like China where projects are generally delivered on time and on budget.
Investor Arfa Karani highlights the change in the nuclear power investment environment in recent years. She explains how the UK government has adopted a more hands-on approach that supports nuclear power and related tech startups to reassure investors. She argues that the regulatory environment still needs to evolve. The discussion now no longer revolves around the availability of capital, but has shifted to an issue of national security, geopolitical influence and global power relations. All unsolvable problems suddenly become solvable, which is promising for nuclear adds Karani.
The publication of “The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy” from the International Energy Agency (IEA) explores new policies, projects, investments and technological developments that could drive the development of new, nuclear electricity. The report shows that under a rapid growth scenario, annual investment should double to $120 billion by 2030. This means that the rollout of new nuclear projects cannot rely exclusively on public funding. The IEA stresses the importance of bringing down financing costs and attracting private capital toward the nuclear power sector.
Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, emphasizes that governments and industry still have significant obstacles to overcome to realize a new phase for nuclear power. In particular, this involves delivering new projects on time and on budget, as well as challenges in financing and supply chains.
The IEA also suggests that the introduction of small modular reactors (SMRs) could help reduce costs. With the right support, SMR plants could reach a volume of 80 GW by 2040. That would account for 10% of global nuclear capacity. However, the report states that the technology’s success and adoption rate will depend on the industry’s ability to bring costs down to levels comparable to large-scale hydro power and offshore wind projects by 2040.
For now, the coal price shows no signs of a new upward trend. The market currently appears rather downward looking with sentiment possibly needing to deteriorate further first – similar to recent developments in the oil and gas markets. As with the gas price for delivery year 2026, the 2024 lows appear to be in sight.
Evonik CEO calls for end to COâ‚‚ policy: wake-up call for Europe’s economy
“The carbon tax for Europe must disappear. It threatens at least 200,000 well-paying jobs in German industry.” – Kullmann, CEO Evonik
Criticism of European climate policy from German industry
After years of reticence, a prominent German CEO is speaking out openly about the consequences of European climate policy. Christian Kullmann, CEO of Evonik – one of the world’s largest producers of specialty chemicals – in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, strongly criticizes the course of Brussels and Berlin. According to Kullmann, it is time for a rethink of the current COâ‚‚ policy, which he believes is putting Germany’s economic stability under pressure.
Concerns about the emissions trading system
Kullmann points to the planned tightening of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2027. He argues that the expected increase in the CO₂ price to €200 per ton is a direct threat to the competitiveness of German industry. According to his estimate, at least 200,000 industrial jobs are at stake as a result. The impact on households would also be significant with an expected increase in annual energy costs of about €1,000 per household.
Industrial pressures and economic risks
Kullmann’s concerns come at a time when German industry is already under pressure. Major companies such as Bosch and ZF Friedrichshafen have announced thousands of job cuts. At the same time, bankruptcies are rising rapidly with an expected peak of more than 24,000 business failures by the end of this year. The combination of rising costs, declining investment and increasing regulatory pressure is fueling fears of accelerated de-industrialization.
Financial redistribution and political tensions
A major criticism concerns the use of proceeds from COâ‚‚ levies. According to Kullmann, about 90% of this revenue flows to national governments, which use it to try to cover their budget deficits. Only a limited portion is used for green investments through EU programs such as NextGenerationEU. This fuels the perception that climate policy is increasingly becoming an instrument of redistribution rather than innovation and sustainability.
A call for reconsideration
Kullmann’s remarks may mark the beginning of a broader debate within European industry about the economic consequences of climate policies. He calls on policymakers to give market principles and economic realities more weight in future decision-making. According to him, it is imperative that business and politics work together on feasible, affordable and technologically sound solutions for the energy transition.
The criticism from Evonik’s CEO reflects a growing concern within the European industry about the balance between climate ambitions and economic feasibility. At a time of geopolitical tensions and technological competition, particularly in artificial intelligence and energy security, Kullmann said it is essential that Europe not undermine its industrial foundations.
Of all the markets included in this analysis, the price of emission allowances is the only one with a positive outlook. This highly policy-influenced market has shown a stable upward trend since its low of around €60 per ton in April.
Price Emission Rights – Dec-25 contract EEX (eur/t) – day cloud candle, log scale
RenewÂable
Europe generates most electronic waste
“Europe leads the way with about 17 kilograms of electronic waste per capita, while each person in Africa produces only 2.5 kilograms.”– Statista
Global trends in electronic waste and recycling
Worldwide, a person generates on average about 8 kilograms of electronic waste per year. However, this amount varies greatly by region. Europe tops the list with about 17 kilograms per capita, while the average in Africa is considerably lower, at about 2.5 kilograms per person.
At the same time, Europe has the highest recycling rate of electronic waste with a relative treatment rate of 43%. In other regions, recycling lags: only 12% of e-waste is recycled in Asia, and only 1% in Africa. These figures point to a significant need for improvement in infrastructure and policies around e-waste in many parts of the world.
At the global level, less than 20% of electronic waste is officially collected and recycled. The vast majority is processed outside official channels, partially recycled or disposed of as residual waste in landfills. The gap between formal and informal processing varies greatly by region and poses a challenge for both environmental policy and circular economy.
English
Nederlands
Global
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
